Commons:Deletion requests/User:Jeff G./Improved photo
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
User uses this template as category for files which he improoved a *little bit* such as cropping: 1. Imho completely redundant, spam-like and unneeded. I never saw this before. Steinsplitter (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Deletion requests/User:Jeff G./Fixed photo --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Keep @Steinsplitter: I thought we addressed these issues at User talk:Jeff_G./Archives/2017/June#improved template. User:Jeff G./Improved photo is defanged, all it does when transcluded is add a cat, and I marked it as such before you nominated it. — Jeff G. ツ 14:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- I see no need. Is anybody else doing it? --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Steinsplitter: Category:Other uploads by Khruner has crops by Khruner in it. — Jeff G. ツ 00:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Steinsplitter: Similarly, Category:Images cropped by Saga City has crops by Saga City in it. — Jeff G. ツ 00:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Steinsplitter: Similarly, Category:Images cropped by LacoR has crops by LacoR. Need I go on? — Jeff G. ツ 00:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- Uploads (under new filename) != overwritings. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- I see no need. Is anybody else doing it? --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Delete This is possibly confusing for re-users when a bold attribution box appears for trivial changes below the threshold of originality (like cropping, rotating, colour curves etc). It is perfectly ok to add a hint about the changes which were made and by whom. But such notices should not confuse reusers by looking like license templates. I recommend to follow the example of Adam Cuerden. In simple cases, he just adds some notes in the edit summary (example: File:John A Macdonald election poster 1891.jpg) and in more complex cases of restorations he added a notice: “Restoration by User:Adam Cuerden” to the author field (featured example: File:Levin C. Handy - General Robert E. Lee in May 1869.jpg). --AFBorchert (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- @AFBorchert: No "bold attribution box" appears on any page due to transclusion of this page, all that appears is a hidden cat, and even then only if one chooses to view hidden cats. — Jeff G. ツ 23:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Custom licensing templates are discouraged for their abuse potential even in case of one's own uploads, they definitely shouldn't be used in case of other users' uploads. Category syntax works just as well in the file namespace. FDMS 4 19:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- @FDMS4: This is not a custom licensing template. No licensing appears on any page due to transclusion of this page, all that appears is a hidden cat, and even then only if one chooses to view hidden cats. — Jeff G. ツ 23:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- It's a template in your (probably not widely watched) userspace, and while indeed not necessarily permanently licensing-related, as such it still poses a risk to some degree that can easily be avoided by simply replacing the line that currently transcludes the template with a line of normal category syntax. That being said, even if the template was a fully protected blank page, it still probably wouldn't be appropriate to use it on file description pages of other users' uploads. FDMS 4 23:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- @FDMS4: What if I were to subst all my uses of User:Jeff G./Improved photo, replacing it with the active version of Category:Photos improved by User:Jeff G.? — Jeff G. ツ 00:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- No, i disagree. It is spam adding his own user category to other users files. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Steinsplitter: You consider changing the methodology of the expression of a hidden category to be spam? Surely, you can't be serious. — Jeff G. ツ 02:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- Your reply explains itself. No, i am not kidding. In some cases adding a (hidden) category is not needed (disruptive/spam/ not sure which english term matches), for example when the improvement is below the threshold of originality. It is not a written rule, but standard practice. To the category's you referred above: Those category's have been added to upload under new filenames, but not overwriting. Well, i have nothing further to add - the template should be deleted imho as per the reasons provided above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Steinsplitter: So you advocate just deleting my page, leaving about 124 non-hidden redlinks and an empty Category:Photos improved by User:Jeff G. in your wake? — Jeff G. ツ 16:55, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- Your reply explains itself. No, i am not kidding. In some cases adding a (hidden) category is not needed (disruptive/spam/ not sure which english term matches), for example when the improvement is below the threshold of originality. It is not a written rule, but standard practice. To the category's you referred above: Those category's have been added to upload under new filenames, but not overwriting. Well, i have nothing further to add - the template should be deleted imho as per the reasons provided above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Steinsplitter: You consider changing the methodology of the expression of a hidden category to be spam? Surely, you can't be serious. — Jeff G. ツ 02:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- While I'm personally absolutely no fan of such user categories either (why not just use Special:ListFiles?), I'm not sure that there isn't precedent for them even for overwrites. Either way, once the template has been deleted (and usages substituted), this should probably be discussed at another venue. FDMS 4 10:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- No, i disagree. It is spam adding his own user category to other users files. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- @FDMS4: What if I were to subst all my uses of User:Jeff G./Improved photo, replacing it with the active version of Category:Photos improved by User:Jeff G.? — Jeff G. ツ 00:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- It's a template in your (probably not widely watched) userspace, and while indeed not necessarily permanently licensing-related, as such it still poses a risk to some degree that can easily be avoided by simply replacing the line that currently transcludes the template with a line of normal category syntax. That being said, even if the template was a fully protected blank page, it still probably wouldn't be appropriate to use it on file description pages of other users' uploads. FDMS 4 23:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)